Back
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
The Coca-Cola Company & Another
Versus
K.M Salim
CS(OS) No. 102 of 2013, I.A. No. 932 of 2013 & I.A. No. 2869 of 2014
Decided On : 04-03-2014
SPRITE, THUMS UP, FANTA - [WELL-KNOWN TRADEMARKS] - [INFRINGEMENT] - [PASSING OFF] - [COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT] - [UNFAIR COMPETITION] - [EX-PARTE DECREE] - [PERMANENT INJUNCTION] - [COSTS] - [HANDING OVER OF INFRINGING MATERIAL] - [NO DAMAGES]
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, Coca-Cola Company and its authorized bottler, sued for infringement of registered trademarks, copyright, passing off, and unfair competition against the defendant, who chose not to appear in court and was proceeded ex parte. The plaintiffs filed an application for pronouncement of judgment against the defendant for failure to file a written statement and contest the matter.
Finding of the Court:
The court examined the merits of the case and found that the defendant had adopted and was using marks and labels confusingly and deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' well-known trademarks SPRITE, THUMS UP, and FANTA, and had also copied distinctive elements of the plaintiffs' SPRITE and FANTA labels. The court held that the defendant's actions constituted infringement of the plaintiffs' trademarks, passing off, and copyright infringement, and amounted to unfair competition.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendant's marks and labels were confusingly and deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' well-known trademarks? 2. Whether the defendant's actions constituted infringement of the plaintiffs' trademarks, passing off, and copyright infringement? 3. Whether the defendant's actions amounted to unfair competition?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court applied settled law and considered the overall structural and phonetic similarity of the marks, as well as the visual, aural, and conceptual similarities of the labels, and found that the defendant's marks and labels were confusingly and deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' well-known trademarks. 2. The court held that the defendant's actions constituted infringement of the plaintiffs' trademarks under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, passing off, and copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 1957. 3. The court found that the defendant's actions amounted to unfair competition, as they were likely to confuse consumers and cause them to mistakenly associate the defendant's products with the plaintiffs' products.
Final Decision: The court granted an ex-parte decree in favor of the plaintiffs, permanently enjoining the defendant from using the infringing marks and labels, passing off its goods as those of the plaintiffs, and infringing the plaintiffs' copyright. The defendant was also ordered to hand over all infringing material to the plaintiffs and pay the costs of the suit. No damages were awarded as there was no evidence for relief of damages.
Manmohan Singh, J.
1. Plaintiffs have filed a suit for injunction and damages for infringement of registered trade mark, infringement of copyright, passing off and act of unfair competition.
2. Despite of service, on 15th March, 2013, the defendant chose not to appear in Court. He was proceeded ex-parte on 14th February, 2014. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order VII Rule 10 CPC for pronouncement of judgment against the defendant on account of failure to file the written statement and to contest the matter.
3. Counsel for the plaintiffs made her submissions on merit also.
4. Let me examine the case of plaintiffs on merit.
5. The plaintiff No. 1, the Coca-Cola Company (TCCC), is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, United States of America. The plaintiff No. 2 is a company incorporated under The Companies Act, 1956.
6. The plaintiff No. 1 was founded in the year 1886 and is the world’s leading manufacturer, marketer and distributor of non-alcoholic beverage, concentrates and syrups used to produce nearly 400 beverage brands. The company has its corporate headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America and has local operations in over 200 hundred countries around the world, including India. The plaintiff No.1 is the owner and registered proprietor of several well known trade marks inter alia SPRITE, THUMS UP, FANTA, COCA-COLA, COKE, DIET COKE, MINUTE MAID, LIMCA, Mr. PIBB, KINLEY, MAAZA, POWERADE and SUNFILL to name only a few of them.
7. The plaintiff No.2 is an authorized bottler of the Plaintiff No.1, and is authorized to prepare, package, sell and distribute specified beverages under certain trade marks of plaintiff No. 1 in Authorized Containers under terms and conditions stipulated in Bottler's Agreement. These (trademarked) Authorized Containers are required to be purchased by authorized bottlers from manufacturers approved by the plaintiff No.1. The plaintiff No.2 is engaged in the production, manufacture, bottling, sale, distribution and supply of non-alcoholic carbonated and non-carbonated soft drinks, fruit juices, packaged drinking water and energy drinks bearing, inter alia, trade marks of the plaintiff No.1 mentioned hereinabove.
8. The annual world-wide sales figures of the plaintiff No.1 in the unit of cases sold for the years 1997 to 2011 are mentioned in para 11 of the plaint.
9. It is alleged that the plaintiff No. 1has expended huge sums of money towards advertisement and promotion of its brands, both globally and in India. Details for promotional figures for the years 2006 to 2011 are mentioned in para 12 of the paint.
10. The present action concerns the misuse of the trade marks SPRITE, SPRITE (label), FANTA (label) and THUMS UP owned by plaintiff No. 1 as well as the copyright which subsists in the SPRITE and FANTA labels of the plaintiff No.1. The defendant has adopted and is using (firstly) the trade mark BRIGHT, which is confusingly and deceptively similar to the Plaintiff No.1’s registered trade mark SPRITE, and (secondly) the mark FUNS UP, which is confusingly and deceptively similar to the plaintiff No.1’s registered trade mark THUMS UP. Further the defendant is using the mark BRIGHT with a trade dress which is confusingly and deceptively similar to the trade dress of plaintiff No. 1’s product SPRITE. The defendant has for its product FUNS UP, copied distinctive elements of the plaintiff No.1’s FANTA label which comprises of the unique colour combination and the distinctive style of writing FANTA. Such acts of the defendant amounts to infringement of the registered trade marks SPRITE and THUMS UP, passing off and the copyright in the SPRITE and FANTA labels of plaintiff No. 1. It is clear that the defendant has deliberately adopted various elements of the plaintiff No.1’s brands to give an impression to the consumers that it is connected to the plaintiffs.
11. In India, the plaintiff No.1’s earliest registration for the trade mark SPRITE d
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
